Prohibitions

juantoo3 said:
As I understand, and I invite knowledgeable correction from one of the Jewish faith:

We cannot eat scavengers or carnivores. We cannot eat the lower half of "clean" animals, I forget the dividing line but I always bring to mind the solar plexus. If I recall, unless it was a total offering which were comparatively rare - once or twice a year if I recall, the typical daily sacrifice only burned the top half. We cannot eat meat torn from a living animal as you see earlier - I seem to vaguely recall something very similar to that. Songbirds are clean, fish with fins and scales only - shrimp and most shellfish are scavengers, my friend used to call shrimp underwater cockroaches. Ha! - Consider John the Baptist! He wore coarse clothing and lived in the desert (and his Daddy was in the priest class), and he ate locusts and wild honey. Locusts (and their kind) are the only insects I recall being "clean." Someone observing kosher could live on a diet of locusts and still be considered clean by kosher law.

Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk. I have a Jewish friend who will not eat any kind of meat with any kind of dairy product. I think the general proscription has gone to that level as a conscientious safe bet of sorts. I think a more literal interpretation would be like a calf in beef milk, among a lot of people who not only kept cattle but counted wealth in the number of cattle they had. Cattle was a form of currency. I always keyed on a more subtle level, that this meant not to further injure someone once they are down - but that is my interpretation.

I always struggled trying to understand the place of dogs and cats and horses. Technically, horses are unclean. Yet wise old Solomon built stables to house his chariot army. Dogs and cats are carnivores. Just being in contact with anything unclean meant you must wash and be ritually unclean until the following evening.

Clean mammals to consume had to chew the cud (be ruminants) and have cloven hooves. Horses chew the cub, but their hooves are not cloven. Pigs feet are cloven, but they do not chew the cud. Cows (obviously), deer, sheep, antelope, goats, and giraffes are all considered clean to eat by kosher.
Click to expand...
As far as Kosher law of not eating dairy with meat.. I was told me they wait 6 hours before ingesting dairy after eating meat. I am also curious about the length of time.. is that to allow digestion? I'm hoping someone that follows this can clarify this for me.

I've been following a content creator that is an Orthodox Jew and I love her stuff. She really explains their culture and religion. Before it was like this big mystery for me because I didn't personally know one and I was truly ignorant. This goes along with walking in the shoes of another to understand them.
If you are interested here is her link editing to add that she's also all over TikTok

www.facebook.com

Miriam Malnik-Ezagui

Miriam Malnik-Ezagui is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Miriam Malnik-Ezagui and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more open and connected.
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 
Faithfulservant said:
I also think there is an element of worshipping the creation and not the Creator.
Click to expand...
Well, I consider myself an environmentalist.
I think that vegetarians tend to be more in tune with the planet..
..and people who eat a lot of meat, not so much.

Greed is the problem .. too much kosher/halal meat is undesirable, imo.
What is too much? When we get out of balance .. fasting is good for the soul.
 
muhammad_isa said:
Well, I consider myself an environmentalist.
I think that vegetarians tend to be more in tune with the planet..
..and people who eat a lot of meat, not so much.

Greed is the problem .. too much kosher/halal meat is undesirable, imo.
What is too much? When we get out of balance .. fasting is good for the soul.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of benefits to fasting .. physical and spiritual. I personally do intermittent fasting. I don't eat after 6 pm and I break my fast between 11am to 12pm the next day. It's not a law for myself.. it just seems to be what my body wants
 
Faithfulservant said:
As far as Kosher law of not eating dairy with meat.. I was told me they wait 6 hours before ingesting dairy after eating meat. I am also curious about the length of time.. is that to allow digestion? I'm hoping someone that follows this can clarify this for me.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Bible specifically lays out a time, but if I recall I think 6 hours is what the sages settled on. I think that's what Bananabrain told me.
 
muhammad_isa said:
Well, I consider myself an environmentalist.
I think that vegetarians tend to be more in tune with the planet..
..and people who eat a lot of meat, not so much.

Greed is the problem .. too much kosher/halal meat is undesirable, imo.
What is too much? When we get out of balance .. fasting is good for the soul.
Click to expand...
I can go along with this in general. I add a little bit of Native American here and try to be thankful for and to the creature that gave its life for my sustenance. A lot of people don't think any further back than plastic meat trays and cellophane. Or that triple decker MickyD's was once a living, breathing creature.

I am inclined to agree that wisdom plays a significant part, and we are supposed to seek after wisdom.

Understanding tomato is a fruit is knowledge.

Understanding not to put tomato in a fruit salad is wisdom.

I also think Guardian Angels work overtime protecting children and fools.
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
Discussion elsewhere caused me to look round a reason for the prohibition of pork and shellfish ... the latter is, I think, debatable in Islam.

Having made only cursory searches, it seems there exists no 'logical' reason for the prohibition – pigs are often unfairly condemned as dirty animals – although a pig will eat pig ...

I mean, if for example pigs are unclean, why did Noah simply not take them on the Ark?

But there is some debate as to whether these prohibitions arose as a means of distinguishing 'us' from 'them'...

There is, from what I read, no evidence of farming pigs or hunting boar in Ancient Egypt.

There is some anthropological research that suggests circumcision among Sumerian and Semitic peoples, and Abraham might have mandated it as a mark of the covenant for himself and his household – his tribe – regardless of their origin.

Having looked again at Leviticus, it's difficult to see why God would extend such a list of prohibitions – or why God ruled the birth of a female child to be twice as bad a s a male ...

+++

We surely have to acknowledge that in various cases traditional cultural practices have received a divine endorsement, or even that because a cultic practice is mentioned in Scripture, it becomes de facto law.

I am not arguing against kosher or halal practice ...

... just thinking aloud. If I've caused offence, I apologise without reserve, I have nothing invested in this discussion.
Click to expand...
When I was little, I was told by all family members that pork could not be eaten under-cooked because you could get something called trichinosis. So it had to be well cooked.
My grandfather said any pork eating would get you that. He gave up eating pork as he was into the Worldwide Church of God.
They were one of those minority denominations that follow Old Testament dietary laws and observe a Saturday Sabbath.

When I was in college, a Jewish roommate insisted that all the Jewish dietary laws were health related and very logical, pointing out the very same thing about pork and some risks from eating shellfish.
 
Faithfulservant said:
I also think there is an element of worshipping the creation and not the Creator.
Click to expand...
Trying to abstain from meat for personal health, or to spare the life of the animal, or to put less pressure on the food chain and environment. All can be thought of as ethical or rational. I don't practice vegetarianism myself, but I've known enough people who do, and for varied reasons.
 
Here's the thing ...

There are Law Codes older than the Decalogue, so prohibitions against murder and theft, codes for the protection and fair exchange of property, for marriage and divorce, inheritance, and much, much more, were customary practices among ancient civilisations, and there in the Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonians empires.

The story of the Flood, as recorded in Genesis, exists in older records, The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, although I happen to believe that the Biblical version shows a far more enlightened theology – but then it had the benefit of editing.

Even the Sabbath as a Day of Rest is not exclusive to the Abrahamic peoples, and again the Akkadians had 'a day of rest of the heart' on the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th, although the dates were altered somewhat to suit the lunar calendar, but the basic 'seventh day' is there.

I'm not decrying the Decalogue, I suppose I am saying two things:
1: Any civil structure of families living in community necessitates some order of law code, of what is, and what is not, acceptable behaviour. The laws are not dependent upon God, inasmuch as it's about 'us' living harmoniously.
2: Other cultic patterns emerge as means of separation – of marking 'us' as different to 'them'.

+++

As an afterthought – I can understand that law-codes be enshrined as 'divine' because they serve the good, and God is the source of all that is good.

Flip the coin, for example, would God not endorse the idea that murder, theft or usury are wrong? No, of course S/He wouldn't. But then, would God not endorse the idea that slavery is wrong ...

So I think I am saying that Law Codes, like the Decalogue, tell us much about us, as they do about our Gods.

+++
 
muhammad_isa said:
Yes .. vegan is becoming increasingly popular..
..due to climate-change, I believe.
Click to expand...
I think because of the effects of industrial-scale cattle rearing and the impact on climate ... the destruction of forrest and the over-farming of arable land, etc., is significant and reason enough to support the idea of a vegan diet.

Add to that the staggering fact that somewhere between 65-75% of global antibiotic manufacture is pumped into livestock in support of food production, and that particular 'we never saw it coming' disaster ticking away ...
 
muhammad_isa said:
Mmm .. I know.
You believe that Jesus abrogated the law, and effectively replaced it with Roman law. :)
Click to expand...
Three points:

1: Jesus and the Jews lived under Roman law.
2: Jesus did not abrogate any law – read Matthew 5:17 – He fulfills the spiritual promise of Israel that the Law was there to serve and protect – In that if people lived in the spirit, as it were, they wouldn't need the law.
3: The Christians, doing as Jesus instructed, were persecuted by Roman law for so doing, ergo the Rule of Faith is not Roman law. If it was, Christians would have been accepted in Roman society.
 
There's an interesting (well, sort-of) paper here

From the conclusion:
... The sudden disappearance of taboos against pig-eating in Egypt in the New Kingdom will then coincide with the absence of Israelites from Egypt and Canaanites barred to enter Egypt due to strict immigration laws under Amenhotep III. The Israelites and Hittites had many things in common; especially legal aspects and historiography and thus biblical chronology, if taken seriously, would argue that Israelite and Hittite interactivity, following the entry into Canaan in 1410 BCE until 1200 BCE, could account for an S-curve presence and absence of the pig-eating taboo with the Hittites. Hybridization took place among the cultures assimilating and transforming in the process of inculturation and thus these nations could imitate the taboo from Israelites present in their societies since the taboo, different from the other nations, had no S-curve of presence and absence with the Israelites, but with them it was a strong unchanged straight line taboo.

In short – taboos against pig-eating might be inline with the interaction with Semitic society – either way the practices seem to gain and lose support, whereas within the Israelites it's a constant.

The prohibition due to sickness from pork is difficult to validate, I think, because of the lack of evidence that peoples were aware of it at the time. Our understanding is more recent ... however, there can well be a 'common sense' avoidance of pork which may or may not be for the right reasons.

(@juantoo3's humble tomato was once considered a dangerous fruit (c17th century), responsible for many aristocratic deaths, until it was discovered that the acidity of the tomato leeched the lead from the pewter on which they were served and it was lead poising from the plate that was the cause.)

That scavengers cannot be food, remained unchanged as principle of taboo among Israelites and the Old Testament and New Testament texts, testifies of that phenomenon.

The prohibition against scavengers makes more sense to me ...
 
Thomas said:
I suppose I am saying two things:
1: Any civil structure of families living in community necessitates some order of law code, of what is, and what is not, acceptable behaviour. The laws are not dependent upon God, inasmuch as it's about 'us' living harmoniously.
2: Other cultic patterns emerge as means of separation – of marking 'us' as different to 'them'.
Click to expand...
Am I hearing an echo?

I've been saying the same thing for years.
 
Thomas said:
Three points:

1: Jesus and the Jews lived under Roman law.
Click to expand...
I might quibble on this point.

The Roman gummint really didn't give a hoot, as long as they got their taxes and the people weren't agitating against Pax Romana.

It isn't like the Roman army moved in one day and turned Jerusalem into a suburb of Rome. The Jews were always considered a people apart, aloof, even strange. The Roman gummint tolerated for the most part already established religions, even adopted many of them (Mithras for example). So to set the tone one has to consider that Herod the Great was Jewish...Pontius Pilot on the other hand, was a Roman.

Excavations have uncovered Roman villas and army outposts in the Galilee, so there was a presence, but it isn't like they kept Jewish slaves or fed them to wild animals in the Coliseum (in the numbers) like they did Christians. Christians were an upstart fad, so it was generally thought, and I believe it was Tacitus who wrote Christianity was discouraged outside of Israel prior to Bar Kochba, and sometimes that was quite violent.

The Levant never was fully "Romanized" under classical Rome. An argument can be made for later under the Byzantine Empire (which was Rome light), and that was back and forth with the Muslims during the Crusades. But during the time of Jesus and the Apostles, Roman rule was comparatively light. An argument might be made that Roman rule became increasingly brought to bear leading up to the Temple being razed and after, but prior to that as long as they got their taxes the Roman gummint didn't really care about the internal politics of Israel.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
I might quibble on this point.
The Roman gummint really didn't give a hoot, as long as they got their taxes and the people weren't agitating against Pax Romana.
Click to expand...
That's a fair quibble. That's how I meant it, generally ... Jesus & Co. lived in a Roman province, albeit with a fair degree of allowance.
The world was generally Hellenistic, again we can argue how much, but I'd suppose more in the cultural centres than in the countryside.

From a couple of Jewish scholars I've read, looking into Paul, there was a lot more interaction, admiration and accord between Jews and Gentiles than our 'general histories' might suppose.

It was a reaction to @muhammad_isa's comment.
 
Thomas said:
From a couple of Jewish scholars I've read, looking into Paul, there was a lot more interaction, admiration and accord between Jews and Gentiles than our 'general histories' might suppose.
Click to expand...
Once again at the risk of stereotyping, I think a lot of that focused on commerce.

There absolutely was a Jewish presence throughout the Hellenized world...the Septuagint should serve as strong evidence of precisely that. I'm thinking that was likely in the commerce centers, including Rome.

We have to acknowledge Constantine's anti-Semitism...it is documented. I've wondered if this was religious based disagreement? There is sufficient parallel between Judaism and Christianity to question why he favored the one and didn't care much for the other.

We know his mother Helena was Christian. His mother was a concubine, she was set aside when Contantine's father Constantius was elevated as a lesser Emperor over Britain. Constantine actually had some half-siblings by his father's second wife, which marriage was necessary under Roman custom at the time.

Constantius was also accommodating of Christianity, even at the height of the Persecution of Diocletian and Galerius, Britain was comparatively a safe haven for Christians.

I can only guess that Constantine may have had a run in with a (some?) Jewish merchant(s), perhaps in the course of provisioning his army. I think Constantine's anti-Semitism was personal, not religious, but the antipathy spilled over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top